Download Free Electronic Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.2 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Background: Although assessment of the quality of medical care often relies on measures of process of care, the linkage between performance of these process measures during usual clinical care and subsequent patient outcomes is unclear.
Objective: To examine the link between the quality of care that patients received and their survival.
Design: Observational cohort study.
Setting: Two managed care organizations.
Patients: Community-dwelling high-risk patients 65 years of age or older who were continuously enrolled in the managed care organizations from 1 July 1998 to 31 July 1999.
Measurements: Quality of care received by patients (as measured by a set of quality indicators covering 22 clinical conditions) and their survival over the following 3 years.
Results: The 372 vulnerable older patients were eligible for a mean of 21 quality indicators (range, 8 to 54) and received, on average, 53% of the care processes prescribed in quality indicators (range, 27% to 88%). Eighty-six (23%) persons died during the 3-year follow-up. There was a graded positive relationship between quality score and 3-year survival. After adjustment for sex, health status, and health service use, quality score was not associated with mortality for the first 500 days, but a higher quality score was associated with lower mortality after 500 days (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.84] for a 10% higher quality score).
Limitations: The observational design limits causal inference regarding the effect of quality of care on survival.
Conclusions: Better performance on process quality measures is strongly associated with better survival among community-dwelling vulnerable older adults.
Reprinted with permission from Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 142, No. 4, Aug. 16, 2005, pp. 274-281, W71-W79. Copyright © 2005 American College of Physicians.
Originally published in: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 142, No. 4, Aug. 16, 2005, pp. 274-281, W71-W79.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.